Sign in to follow this  
Sven Brödenfeld

Old One Ton

Recommended Posts

Hi,

i just got an old one ton 1987 build in Gernany Wedel Schützwerke Sistership Container

Now my question is, are these Boats seaworthy, like go Offshore?

Got a super Running BMW D50 inside

Hull got no damage,only a few soft spots on Deck

nothing major 

i don’t wähnt her to remodel to a cruiser

I don’t want to race her, just for fun and maybe a longer trip 3724367E-5498-43EC-9881-455D50AF439F.thumb.jpeg.666756dbcf509c9201e438d84e8cce0a.jpeg

is the ex I-Punkt  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know, but I think it's pretty to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half tonner and one tonner are rather seawothy boat altought not the tamest in the breeze, construction and design can vary a lot, some of them were plenty strong others no so much.

There are usually quite wet upwind and need a fair bit of meat on the rails , not very short handed friendly.

I have seen half tonners do fine in 350nm coastal races so I don't see why a one tonner in good condition can't do the same.

In France a lot of them have been IRC tunned with carbon mast and more modern keel and rudder.

Edit: Also I like the look of that boat :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely !!
I am close to Germany, give me a call if you need rail meat :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Container was designed for the Admirals Cup, she was expected to do Fastnet, so it should be ok offshore.

I assume that yours is sistership to the 1987 version of Container? http://rbsailing.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/container-judelvrolijk-one-tonner.html

Nice paintwork. Reminds me of a boat for sale near me

bp5105260366347110448.jpg?pxc_size=1050,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I punk't has a very interesting history IIRC

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offshore in a breeze without 8 people on the rail it will be a hand full. 

Reef early, reef often.

Should be fine offshore. Being an 87' it probably wasn't beat up to long.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks beautiful and fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice looking boat. I use to own a Davidson from the same era. Offshore? As in the 'O' in IOR? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Boat was only uesed at Admiralscup 1987 and some races cowes week back then

afterwards a sailing school was sailing her.

i could not resist to buy her for around 7000$ 

ok spend a little in Paint and new ropes 

would like to go for a longer trip like to canary island 

she is build in womax Waben only Carbon 

ED7A1EB0-1C9A-4581-B199-E178B9DC3E5E.jpeg

4F22944A-AD24-4136-9C44-C8B56DF3A2C1.jpeg

FBEF78F2-10C3-4B24-B576-E1E3D63D3CAE.jpeg

45848148-9D46-45DA-8E16-0765961FC97C.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a couple of posters here that know the story well. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sven Brödenfeld said:

This Boat was only uesed at Admiralscup 1987 and some races cowes week back then

afterwards a sailing school was sailing her.

i could not resist to buy her for around 7000$ 

ok spend a little in Paint and new ropes 

would like to go for a longer trip like to canary island 

she is build in womax Waben only Carbon 

ED7A1EB0-1C9A-4581-B199-E178B9DC3E5E.jpeg

4F22944A-AD24-4136-9C44-C8B56DF3A2C1.jpeg

FBEF78F2-10C3-4B24-B576-E1E3D63D3CAE.jpeg

45848148-9D46-45DA-8E16-0765961FC97C.jpeg

Congratulations with your purchase. I love to see when people take these retired racers under their wings, so future sailors can see how we raced in the past.

Does it still have a two-way pump, so you can pump seawater into the boat? :)

23 hours ago, Icedtea said:

I punk't has a very interesting history IIRC

The history is that they was found cheating badly, filling 10-12 inflatable canisters with seawater, to use as righting ballast. That is what they used the two way bilge pump for.

They was disqualified from both Admirals Cup and One ton Cup, and the crew members was excluded from competition for years, because of that.

That is all history now, but today perhaps the most interesting part of it, is that two of those crew members are now skipper and navigator on Team Brunel. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 2:16 PM, Sven Brödenfeld said:

Thanx

i did the paint job my self

 

Its bow originally pointed a bit upwards, which was characteristic to many of the 80's offshore racers:

I-Punkt_Ian+W+%25282%2529.jpg

This has seemingly been changed, as this picture shows:

Go+ex+I-Punkt.jpg

Did you change this (why?), or do you plan to change it back?

BTW; is this picture taken outside the hall in Glücksburg?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a nice looking resto job --

1 hour ago, Diva39 said:

Its bow originally pointed a bit upwards, which was characteristic to many of the 80's offshore racers:

I-Punkt_Ian+W+%25282%2529.jpg

This has seemingly been changed, as this picture shows:

Go+ex+I-Punkt.jpg

Did you change this (why?), or do you plan to change it back?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the odd-looking up-tick at the bow (and removal thereof) was due to rating rules and subsequent changes. Measured freeboard or similar.

Nothing to do with actual performance - so why rebuild it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, duncan (the other one) said:

Its a nice looking resto job --

I wouldn't be surprised if the odd-looking up-tick at the bow (and removal thereof) was due to rating rules and subsequent changes. Measured freeboard or similar.

Nothing to do with actual performance - so why rebuild it?

Only to restore the original appearance. It's not handsom but typical for the eighties IOR racers.

I'm not sure about the reason of this shape, but I think it was a compromise of keeping the inner front and aft girth short, to get the distance between the girth stations as short as possible, without compromizing the height of the bow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diva39 said:

Only to restore the original appearance. It's not handsom but typical for the eighties IOR racers.

I'm not sure about the reason of this shape, but I think it was a compromise of keeping the inner front and aft girth short, to get the distance between the girth stations as short as possible, without compromizing the height of the bow.

You're on the right track, but it actually was done to spread the forward girth stations apart!

IOR Rated Length was all about geometry and where various slope lines (FG, AGSL, and APSL) intercepted the waterline expressed as (FOC, AOCG, and AOCP, IIRC)

In this case, by pushing FGS forward, the slope decreased pushing the intersection point slightly further than would be the case with a normal sheer line,  Stephen Jones even did this to the back end of some of his designs as well, for slightly different reasons, but for the same effect, to shorten Rated Length a bit.

Caminata recent.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Diva39 said:

Congratulations with your purchase. I love to see when people take these retired racers under their wings, so future sailors can see how we raced in the past.

Does it still have a two-way pump, so you can pump seawater into the boat? :)

The history is that they was found cheating badly, filling 10-12 inflatable canisters with seawater, to use as righting ballast. That is what they used the two way bilge pump for.

They was disqualified from both Admirals Cup and One ton Cup, and the crew members was excluded from competition for years, because of that.

That is all history now, but today perhaps the most interesting part of it, is that two of those crew members are now skipper and navigator on Team Brunel. :)

 

 

You don’t pick up on sarcasm well do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mad said:

You don’t pick up on sarcasm well do you?

Sure I do, but this history is absolutely relevant to the subject in this thread - and too interesting not to be told. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Diva39 said:

Sure I do, but this history is absolutely relevant to the subject in this thread - and too interesting not to be told. :)

It’s been told more than once in the forums, I’m sure the people involved have no wish for the sorry saga to be re-visited. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mad said:

It’s been told more than once in the forums, I’m sure the people involved have no wish for the sorry saga to be re-visited. 

Though you didn't hesitate to allude to the same saga with your sarcasm, right? :)

Yes, the history has probably been told more than once in the forums, as well as outside the forums. But when the subject is the original i-Punkt boat, the story is certainly relevant for this particular thread.

And I do not agree in tabooificating the spicy parts of sailing history. The guys treated badly, was heavily penalized, came back, got a second chance, picked it up and made a great and respectful sailing carreer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Diva39 said:

Does it still have a two-way pump, so you can pump seawater into the boat? :)

The history is that they was found cheating badly, filling 10-12 inflatable canisters with seawater, to use as righting ballast. That is what they used the two way bilge pump for.

Could be a good addition when cruising long distances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 12 metre said:

You're on the right track, but it actually was done to spread the forward girth stations apart!

IOR Rated Length was all about geometry and where various slope lines (FG, AGSL, and APSL) intercepted the waterline expressed as (FOC, AOCG, and AOCP, IIRC)

In this case, by pushing FGS forward, the slope decreased pushing the intersection point slightly further than would be the case with a normal sheer line,  Stephen Jones even did this to the back end of some of his designs as well, for slightly different reasons, but for the same effect, to shorten Rated Length a bit.

Caminata recent.jpg

12 Metre - thank you for your explanation of the rules, which I can see you understand a lot deeper than me.

As I understand the rules at that time, the inner girths was positioned where the girth length of these girths was equal to a certain fraction of the overall beam, and the distance between these two girth positions had a great influence to the rated length of the waterline.

As the girth length is measuret from sheerline to sheerline, around the hull, the lower sheerline at these points shortened the distance between the girth stations, and thereby the rated waterline length. Is that correct?

The rules became more and more complicated, and the boats therefore became more and more strange looking, like the designers competed the rule makers as well as their competitors.

It started already in the 60's. Scampi, which is perhaps Peter Norlin's most succesful design, had this destinct IOR kink on the freeboard, already in 1969. I grew up in my dads Scampi in the early 70's, and we had a lot of fun racing it.

316361-scampi-30249503_thb.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Could be a good addition when cruising long distances.

Excactly - and every time he want to enjoy the boats full potential, without a crew of 8-10 persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a Fastnet on the sistership, ex-Container "Aria" as naviguesser in the 89 Italian Admiral's Cup team.  Great boat, and pretty tough.  Tougher than some of the crew unfortunately.  But it always needed all the bodies on the rail to keep it going fast - even offshore. 

The only people who went below in those 4 days were the two helmsmen, and occasionally me. 

Once you get used to them, and don't push too hard, the runners aren't an issue.

You'd be strongly advised to take out some or all the internal lead in the bilges, and use it to cast a small bulb to attach to the bottom of the keel.  It will make a mountain of difference.  Ask J/V for advice on this one - they're very helpful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Diva39 said:

12 Metre - thank you for your explanation of the rules, which I can see you understand a lot deeper than me.

As I understand the rules at that time, the inner girths was positioned where the girth length of these girths was equal to a certain fraction of the overall beam, and the distance between these two girth positions had a great influence to the rated length of the waterline.

As the girth length is measuret from sheerline to sheerline, around the hull, the lower sheerline at these points shortened the distance between the girth stations, and thereby the rated waterline length. Is that correct?

The AGS was located where the girth = 0.75B or maybe BMax (lost my rule book years ago)  The AIGS was located where the girth = 0.875B

But, and this is a big BUT, if no such point could be located (which almost always occurred with wide stern boats), then the aftmost point of the sheer (i.e. where the the sheer line intersected the transom) would be taken as the location of the AGS.  The AIGS would then be located where the girth = .875/.75 of the girth at the AGS.  So proportionately the same change in girth.

Blow is a drawing I lifted from the RBSailing blogspot (which was lifted from a copy of Yachts and Yachting from the 70's).  Unfortunately he only lifted the illustration of the AOCP part as there was also one for the AOCG IIRC.

Rated Length was determined as something like LBGC - AOC +FOC.

AOC was (AOCP + AOCG)/2  In other words the average of the two..

AOCG essentially represented the estimated change in immersed volume distribution .

AOCP essentially measured how flat the run aft was and its proximity to the waterline

It was with the AOCG and especially AOCP that all the fun monkey business began.

In the Y&Y article they discussed Jones approach which was to have a very typical AOCG,  but a very positive AOCP by having the AGS further aft with a very high and flat APSL which pushed the intersection of that linewith the waterline quite far forward.   To combat this,  IOR subsequently introduced BAPSL (Base Aft Profile SLope) which limited the shallowness of the slope line to 6

Davidson on the other hand took the exact opposite approach with the "Davidson crease" as seen on Waverider.  Here, the AGS was pushed way forward with an extreme reverse transom. and APSL was artificially increased by the crease to make the AOCP less negative than it would have been without the crease.  Like the Double knuckle he introduced on his IACC design that beat Prada - it looked like it shouldn't work - but it did.

Finally, there is Whiting's approach on Newspaper Taxi (which wasn't evident on many of his other designs such as Magic Bus - in fact quite the opposite) where he deliberately pulls the girth stations closer together by really pulling in the topsides just forward of the AGS.

IOR diagram3.jpg

Waverider shipping J Malitte RBsailing.jpg

NewsTaxi.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 12 metre said:

The AGS was located where the girth = 0.75B or maybe BMax (lost my rule book years ago)  The AIGS was located where the girth = 0.875B

But, and this is a big BUT, if no such point could be located (which almost always occurred with wide stern boats), then the aftmost point of the sheer (i.e. where the the sheer line intersected the transom) would be taken as the location of the AGS.  The AIGS would then be located where the girth = .875/.75 of the girth at the AGS.  So proportionately the same change in girth.

Blow is a drawing I lifted from the RBSailing blogspot (which was lifted from a copy of Yachts and Yachting from the 70's).  Unfortunately he only lifted the illustration of the AOCP part as there was also one for the AOCG IIRC.

Rated Length was determined as something like LBGC - AOC +FOC.

AOC was (AOCP + AOCG)/2  In other words the average of the two..

AOCG essentially represented the estimated change in immersed volume distribution .

AOCP essentially measured how flat the run aft was and its proximity to the waterline

It was with the AOCG and especially AOCP that all the fun monkey business began.

In the Y&Y article they discussed Jones approach which was to have a very typical AOCG,  but a very positive AOCP by having the AGS further aft with a very high and flat APSL which pushed the intersection of that linewith the waterline quite far forward.   To combat this,  IOR subsequently introduced BAPSL (Base Aft Profile SLope) which limited the shallowness of the slope line to 6

Davidson on the other hand took the exact opposite approach with the "Davidson crease" as seen on Waverider.  Here, the AGS was pushed way forward with an extreme reverse transom. and APSL was artificially increased by the crease to make the AOCP less negative than it would have been without the crease.  Like the Double knuckle he introduced on his IACC design that beat Prada - it looked like it shouldn't work - but it did.

Finally, there is Whiting's approach on Newspaper Taxi (which wasn't evident on many of his other designs such as Magic Bus - in fact quite the opposite) where he deliberately pulls the girth stations closer together by really pulling in the topsides just forward of the AGS.

 

Waverider shipping J Malitte RBsailing.jpg

NewsTaxi.jpg

I remember seeing that very pic of Waverider being loaded abord ship in my teenage boat-obsessed years and thinking "what a nice smooth shape it is, such a contrast with the crease.  And now seeing NT's lines - "What a horror" - can't imagine anything much more distorted than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 5:16 PM, Sven Brödenfeld said:

 

she is build in womax Waben only Carbon 

 

 

 

 

By Woger...... ?            Welease Woger

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone’s 

thank you so much for your reply

l learn so much about these kind of Boot.

Everything is new to me , and a big challenge, smile

 

i did not make any changes to the Bow and I believe there was two I-Punkt around 

one 36 feet and one 40 feet 

notice: no water Ballast inside, lol

Maybe to make it suitable to sail it with a small crew to add  some watertanks or a bulb to the keel

and she is stil going fast, smile 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PIL007 said:

By Woger...... ?            Welease Woger

Build by Udo Schuetz in Germany womax Carbon honeycomp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOR boats are like pubic hair. They were both attractive enough in their day, but we all enjoy our modern rides these days with their smother run aft.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wife and I have an IOR 1-tonner (1979 design, 1985 build) that we have cruised fairly extensively up and down the eastern seaboard of Australia and Tassmania. as long as you carry appropriate sail, it is fine 2-up. We have a 2/4 hoist main that only goes to just uner the hounds, so that we can strap on both runners and tack or jibe without touching the runners (the checks get temporarily attached to the rails abaft the mast). We cruise with either a No.3 or No.4 jib.  We have a full-hoist main and genoas for racing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sven Brödenfeld said:

i did not make any changes to the Bow and I believe there was two I-Punkt around 

one 36 feet and one 40 feet

The kink on the bow sheerline was on the Judel/Jrolijk 40 (which is yours :)). You can see on your second picture:

FBEF78F2-10C3-4B24-B576-E1E3D63D3CAE.jpeg

The first i-Punkt looks completely different:

I-Punkt+85_3+RBSailing.jpg

6 hours ago, Sven Brödenfeld said:

notice: no water Ballast inside, lol

Maybe to make it suitable to sail it with a small crew to add  some watertanks or a bulb to the keel

There was no permanent watertank that time, but there was a bilge pump, which was able to pump water both into and out of the boat.

Pumping sea water into the boat is very unusual, unless you want to use it to fill a ballast tank, so that bilge pump made the jury suspecious. One of the crew members admired later that they used it to fill inflatable water canisters, to stack in the windward bunk, like this:

I-Punkt_ballast+set+up.jpg

Thats why there are no tanks in your boat, but maybe a two way bilge pump.

I probably wouldn't dare to add a bulp to that keel, unless adding major structural improvements to both keel and hull. These racers was build as light as possible, and not designed to carry more keel than absolutely necessary.

To me, it sounds like a much better idea to design two 300 L water tanks to fit along the inside of each freeboard. Something like this:

i-punkt.jpg.c5aca758dcd1abc2aec4b53767b4ded7.jpg

It has to be rated in, as well as an added bulb, if you want to race it - but you say you don't plan to. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DickDastardly said:

I remember seeing that very pic of Waverider being loaded abord ship in my teenage boat-obsessed years and thinking "what a nice smooth shape it is, such a contrast with the crease.  And now seeing NT's lines - "What a horror" - can't imagine anything much more distorted than that!

I think the section chart is not Waverider, but one of Paul Whitings designs, as 12 Metre mension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Diva39 said:

I think the section chart is not Waverider, but one of Paul Whitings designs, as 12 Metre mension.

Yes, it's Newspaper Taxi ... NT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DickDastardly said:

NT

Ahr - got it! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 2:21 PM, Diva39 said:

 

Go+ex+I-Punkt.jpg

 

 

My oh my what a good looking graphics job. If that every boat could look so cool. 

Question: do my eyes deceive me, or are there 70 hexagons? Is the name actually read as "69...70...GO"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ModernViking said:

Here is an X One-ton for sale. 
With nose-job included and all.
My god they are cheap, but I wouldn't know what to do with one.
But I do like the looks of them. 
I know, I am weird.
Sometimes

https://www.racing-yachts.com/x-one-ton-179.html#

 

And for those wanting a boat with a pedigree  rather than just a generic tonner- Mad Max (Goldcorp) is for sale as well at USD 35,000.

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1986/Davidson-1-Tonner-3081465/Vancouver/Canada#.WqbgmR3waUk .  Quite well maintained over the years and had a recent refit and re-powered.

A history of Max can be found on the RB Sailing site: http://rbsailing.blogspot.ca/2013/03/mad-max-davidson-one-tonner.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 12 metre said:

And for those wanting a boat with a pedigree  rather than just a generic tonner- Mad Max (Goldcorp) is for sale as well at USD 35,000.

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1986/Davidson-1-Tonner-3081465/Vancouver/Canada#.WqbgmR3waUk .  Quite well maintained over the years and had a recent refit and re-powered.

A history of Max can be found on the RB Sailing site: http://rbsailing.blogspot.ca/2013/03/mad-max-davidson-one-tonner.html

Don't know about "just a generic tonner".
The only X-One ton's that were built, all competed in the Admirals Cup as far as I know. (Except for 1 or 2 MK II's that were built later)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ModernViking said:

Don't know about "just a generic tonner".
The only X-One ton's that were built, all competed in the Admirals Cup as far as I know. (Except for 1 or 2 MK II's that were built later)
 

When 12 Metre call them "generic", I guess he just mean they are not one off's, and maybe not so exotic and distinct like the others, mentioned above.

The MK1 was actually molded in the same mold as the X-402, which was present a year earlier as a pretty civilized (but damn fast) family racer. Im not sure what they changed on MK2, but I think they made a few mods to the hull, only to improve the rating, and changed the keel to balance a larger sail area.

They made totally:

  • 79 pcs X-402
  • 12 pcs X-One Ton MK1
  • 12 pcs X-One Ton MK2

Because it was based on a family boat certainly didn't mean it couldn't win races. The MK1 "Maitresse" made a 5th in the 1985 World Championship and the Mark2 "Andelsbanken" won the WC in 1986.

They followed basically the strategy from the X-3/4 ton, which was based on the X-102 - but X-3/4 Ton was even more succesful than X-One Ton, as the MK2 made 1. 2. 4. and 5. in the 1985 WC.

More than 300 pcs X-102 and X-3/4 ton was produced.

Niels Jeppesen was very young in the 80's, and for good reasons inspired by Bruce Farr, but if anyone doubted his talent after his break through with the X-79, they probably stopped doubting after his two tonners. :)

The X-95 never spun off a dedicated X-1/2 Ton - probably because he learned his lessons on than one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Diva39 said:

When 12 Metre call them "generic", I guess he just mean they are not one off's, and maybe not so exotic and distinct like the others, mentioned above.

The MK1 was actually molded in the same mold as the X-402, which was present a year earlier as a pretty civilized (but damn fast) family racer. Im not sure what they changed on MK2, but I think they made a few mods to the hull, only to improve the rating, and changed the keel to balance a larger sail area.

They made totally:

  • 79 pcs X-402
  • 12 pcs X-One Ton MK1
  • 12 pcs X-One Ton MK2

Because it was based on a family boat certainly didn't mean it couldn't win races. The MK1 "Maitresse" made a 5th in the 1985 World Championship and the Mark2 "Andelsbanken" won the WC in 1986.

They followed basically the strategy from the X-3/4 ton, which was based on the X-102 - but X-3/4 Ton was even more succesful than X-One Ton, as the MK2 made 1. 2. 4. and 5. in the 1985 WC.

More than 300 pcs X-102 and X-3/4 ton was produced.

Niels Jeppesen was very young in the 80's, and for good reasons inspired by Bruce Farr, but if anyone doubted his talent after his break through with the X-79, they probably stopped doubting after his two tonners. :)

The X-95 never spun off a dedicated X-1/2 Ton - probably because he learned his lessons on than one.

 

If those numbers are correct 12 x MK1 and 12 x MK2 I am utterly wrong, and will go and spank myself with a damp newspaper.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ModernViking said:

If those numbers are correct 12 x MK1 and 12 x MK2 I am utterly wrong, and will go and spank myself with a damp newspaper.
 

Better get yourself to a newstand...Sailboatdata says 25 X-1Tons were built, essentially verifying what Diva39 said.

http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=2116 

Diva 39 is also correct in that I wasn't trying to be disparaging - just pointing out that those X 1-Tons are relatively numerous, compared to a boat like Max

There was one of them in PNW (Delicate Balance)in the late 80's or thereabouts.  I don't' know if she was bought new or was an ex-AC boat  There was also Dauntless (ex-Spica), a later generation design circa 1991 and was usually listed locally as a Jeppesen 1 Ton.  As Spica, I don't think she set the world on fire, but she was perfectly suited to English Bay.  A real light air flyer she generally dominated Max and Pendragon in the light air.  The trade off being she tended to struggle against them when the breeze was up - which doesn't happen very often in EB.  

Below is Spica.  Much less freeboard and less raked reverse transom, which really was the type form of later generation 1 Tons.

 

Spica admirals cup 1991 picture 1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ModernViking said:

If those numbers are correct 12 x MK1 and 12 x MK2 I am utterly wrong, and will go and spank myself with a damp newspaper.
 

Damp newspapers are hard to find these days, and web newspapers are pretty boring to be spanked by. ^_^

If you really want non generic and fast Niels Jeppesen one tonner, see if you could get your hands on this one:

Okyalos_recent.jpg

She is the only one off IOR racer Niels Jeppesen ever made, and till these days one of fastest one tonners ever made.

I rember it was announced for sale in Norway in 2015 with the following text:

For Sale, lying in Norway, Volvo Penta 28 hp, 835 000 Kr [87.000 €], Weight 5400 kg, This unique sailboat is the best you can get! It was built as a one off at X-Yachts of Denmark and won the One Ton Cup 1990 in Marstrand. A nice rigtig Racing yacht, but today we sail just great summer trips with friends poured Aus Sea, the North Sea and along the Norwegian coast and enjoying life on board. The boat is only to the 26th August 2015 in Norway, so we sail the boat back to Kiel, Germany.

http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/One Tonner/X Okyalos.htm

You don't live far from Kiel, as you told - see if you can find it their, and call me if you need a "bøf". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

Better get yourself to a newstand...Sailboatdata says 25 X-1Tons were built, essentially verifying what Diva39 said.

Then you have to include the one off from 1990 (descriped right above) though not labeled as an "X-One Ton".

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

There was also Dauntless (ex-Spica), a later generation design circa 1991 and was usually listed locally as a Jeppesen 1 Ton.

Hey - that must be the original "Okyalos" who won in 1990. She looks very much alike.

My link doesn't say anything about "Spica" - only that it was painted yellow and renamed "Corum-Diamant" in 1993 - so it seems like you got the missing information of 1991-1992 right there. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Diva39 said:

Hey - that must be the original Okyalos who won in 1990. She looks very much alike.

My link doesn't say anything about "Spica" - only that it was painted yellow and renamed "Corum-Diemond" in 1993 - so it seems like you got the missing information of 1991-1992 right there. :)

Spica was a Japanese boat and competed in the 1991 AC with the Japanese team.  Again, RB Sailing has a write up on her - although much shorter than Max's storied history.

http://rbsailing.blogspot.ca/2015/03/spica-japanese-one-tonner.html 

It looks like there were several Spicas over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Diva39 said:

Damp newspapers are hard to find these days, and web newspapers are pretty boring to be spanked by. ^_^

If you really want non generic and fast Niels Jeppesen one tonner, see if you could get your hands on this one:

Okyalos_recent.jpg

She is the only one off IOR racer Niels Jeppesen ever made, and till these days one of fastest one tonners ever made.

I rember it was announced for sale in Norway in 2015 with the following text:

For Sale, lying in Norway, Volvo Penta 28 hp, 835 000 Kr [87.000 €], Weight 5400 kg, This unique sailboat is the best you can get! It was built as a one off at X-Yachts of Denmark and won the One Ton Cup 1990 in Marstrand. A nice rigtig Racing yacht, but today we sail just great summer trips with friends poured Aus Sea, the North Sea and along the Norwegian coast and enjoying life on board. The boat is only to the 26th August 2015 in Norway, so we sail the boat back to Kiel, Germany.

http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/One Tonner/X Okyalos.htm

You don't live far from Kiel, as you told - see if you can find it their, and call me if you need a "bøf". :)

Nice, but if I had the time and money, I would go with Passion 2, the Briand designed winner of the 1984 OTC.  To my eye the most beautiful IOR boat ever, although maybe it's just the colour a scheme I find so appealing:

 

1984 OTC_Passion 2.jpg

1984 OTC_Passion 2_2.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

Spica was a Japanese boat and competed in the 1991 AC with the Japanese team.  Again, RB Sailing has a write up on her - although much shorter than Max's storied history.

http://rbsailing.blogspot.ca/2015/03/spica-japanese-one-tonner.html

Your link says:

"The second Spica (JPN 8242) was a Jepperson/X-Yachts design, which raced for Japan in the 1991 Admiral's Cup (skippered by M Muroi), alongside team-mates Will (50-footer) and Carino (Two Tonner)."

Though spelling Jeppesens name wrong, it stacks up, doesn't it?

It was even the "Okyalos" itselves, sold to the japanese team after the 1990 edition, or a copy based on Niels Jeppesens drawings.

As X-yachts today descripe it like this:

"The last X-Yachts model built to win an official World Championship. Greek banker, Yannis Costopoulos was the owner of the 1988 and 1989 “World Champion” X-3/4 Ton yachts (“Okyalos IIX” and “Okyalos IX”) and ordered the best one-off One Ton that could be built. “Okyalos X” duly won the One Ton Cup in Marstrand, Sweden."

.... I believe Spica must be the original "Okyalos".

BTW; who would order "the second best one-off One Ton that could be built"? :D

https://www.x-yachts.com/en/yachts/previous-models/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Diva39 said:

Your link says:

"The second Spica (JPN 8242) was a Jepperson/X-Yachts design, which raced for Japan in the 1991 Admiral's Cup (skippered by M Muroi), alongside team-mates Will (50-footer) and Carino (Two Tonner)."

Though spelling Jeppesens name wrong, it stacks up, doesn't it?

It was even the "Okyalos" itselves, sold to the japanese team after the 1990 edition, or a copy based on Niels Jeppesens drawings.

As X-yachts today descripe it like this:

"The last X-Yachts model built to win an official World Championship. Greek banker, Yannis Costopoulos was the owner of the 1988 and 1989 “World Champion” X-3/4 Ton yachts (“Okyalos IIX” and “Okyalos IX”) and ordered the best one-off One Ton that could be built. “Okyalos X” duly won the One Ton Cup in Marstrand, Sweden."

.... I believe Spica must be the original "Okyalos".

BTW; who would order "the second best one-off One Ton that could be built"? :D

https://www.x-yachts.com/en/yachts/previous-models/

Spica resembles Okyalos VI, and the old timelines match up.  Okyalos VI - 1990 OTC, Spica - 1991 AC.

However, RB Sailing shows what is allegedly a recent photo of Okyalos VI looking in great condition in her original livery.

Spica came to Vancouver in the early 90's and re-named Dauntless.  She had a great racing career in Van but sold I think in the early to mid 2000's.  Haven't seen her sailing in years, but I did see her anchored in False Creek a few years ago and looked like she was being used as a liveaboard.  RB Sailing says she is currently in Point Roberts, WA.  In any event, i suspect she is rotting away these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

Spica resembles Okyalos VI, and the old timelines match up.  Okyalos VI - 1990 OTC, Spica - 1991 AC.

Well - not quite. Since my last post, I have been plowing through the result lists of 1990-1994.

She made top 4 results in all 5 years. All in her original name Okyalos VI, except from the one year 1993, when she was renamed Corum Diamant with yellow paint sheme. She was "re-re-named" back to Okyalos VI in 1994.

Spica is not on the lists, so she must have had a parallel carreer in Japan and eventually in North america.

If it was a Niels Jeppesen design, as your link says (and it looks very much alike), it must have been a copy of Okyalos VI, probably not build by X-Yachts.

I also found tiny differences in details on both new and old pictures. It seems more right to call her a "two-off".

1990 Marstrand, Suéde, 27 bateaux, 10 nations: OKYALOS.

1 Okyalos VI, Gréce, Jeppesen 1990
2 Amsterdamed, H 189, Judel/Vrolijk 1990
3 Mean Machine VII, H 188, Judel/Vrolijk 1990
4 Zurich, Danemark, Jeppersen 1989
5 Fram XI, Norway, Farr 1989
6 Entertainer, Suéde, Farr 1989
7 Gunwor, Suéde, Judel/Vrolijk 1989
8 Hydro, N 7000 Farr 1987
9 Maestro, SR 11900, Farr, ex "Brava" (champion 89),
10 New Yorker, Germany, Judel/Vrolijk 1989
? ABAP/4,
? Brava, Italie, Farr 1990
? Argonaut, Suéde Andrieu 89
? Happy Hour, Suéde, Farr 89
? Elan, Finlande,
? Investa, Norvége, Andrieu 89
? Gemini, Poland, Judel/Vrolijk
? Saudade, G 582, Judel/Vrolijk 1989
? Ninja, J 3880, Farr
? ??, S 9243, Dubois 1986, ex "Full Pelt"

1991 Nieuwpoort, Belgique, 19 bateaux, 11 nations: VIBES.

1 Vibes, US 43898, Farr 1991
2 Brava, I 11900, Farr 1990
3 Port Pendennis, K 518, Dubois 1991

4 Okyalos VI, Gr, Jeppesen 1990
5 Saudade, G 582, Judel/Vrolijk 1989
6 Corum Diamant, F 1881, Judel/Vrolijk 1990, ex "Mean Machine VII"
11 Fram XI, Norway, Farr 1989
? Zurich, Dk, Judel/Vrolijk 1991
? Relax, Belgique, Humphreys 1985
? Advocate, ?, Judel/Vrolijk 1989

1992 ?, Danemark, 18 bateaux, ? nations: BRAVA Q8.

1 Brava Q8, I 13000, Farr 92
2 Kateie, ?, Judel/Vrolijk 1990, ex "Mean Machine VII"
3 Saudade, ?, Judel/Vrolijk

4 Okyalos VI, Gr, Jeppesen 1990

1993 Cagliari, Italie, 12 bateaux, ? nations: PINTA.

1 Pinta, G 4014, Judel/Vrolijk 1992
2 Thomas I Punkt, G, ?,
3 Brava Q8, I 13000, Farr 92

4 Corum Diamant, France, Jeppesen 1990
5 Cannonball 2, ITA, ?
6 Cha Cha II, JPN, Farr 90
7 Nippon, JPN, ?
8 Osama, Italie, Judel/Vrolijk 1988
9 Bribon, ESP, ?
10 Gemini, POL, ?

1994 Marseille, France, 7 bateaux, 5? nations: PINTA.

1 Pinta, G 4014, Judel/Vrolijk 1992
2 Okyalos VI, GRE 49294, Jeppesen 1990
3 Brava Q8, I 13000, Farr 92
? ??, DEN 1256, Judel/Vrolijk 1991
? ??, JPN 4789, ??
? ??, ITA ?????, ??
? ??, ???, ??

http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/One Tonner/One tonner Resultats.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Diva39 said:

If it was a Niels Jeppesen design, as your link says (and it looks very much alike), it must have been a copy of Okyalos VI, probably not build by X-Yachts.

I just found this chart from X-yachts. It shows that they produced not only 1 one-off 1-tonner in 1990. They produced another one in 1989:

prod.jpg.032e3baa72ab898e6c4a6f6ad4b230a6.jpg

She was the original "Stockbroker", later campained as "Zürich" (X-yachts design no 17) owned by the danish stockbroker Jens Erik Høst. There is not much documentation to find on her, so it is hard to see whether she was renamed "Spica" after she was sold between 1990-1991.

Here are the few pics I can find:

stockbroker.thumb.jpg.b2c114ac08d1bdc59ab80eb92a7433f5.jpg

"Stockbroker" crossing in front of "Indulgence" in 1989:

Stockbroker+and+Indulgence.jpg

The boom, pulpit and pushpit got the same shape as on "Spica", and the web between the life lines, including the attachments on the railing, are similar:

Spica+91_1.jpg

Here she is for sale, after she was campained as "Zürich" in 1990. She was replaced by a blue/white Judel & Vrolijk in 1991. That match the beginning of the "Spica" history:

1990%2010%20Seahorse,%20X.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 12-metre, I agree with you about Passion 2, such an elegant looking yacht, just like her smaller sister Free Lance!  I hope it is ok if I add some of your rule analysis above to my IOR article in my blog, I am often updating articles as I find new information (or corrections) on boats or details like these.  

 

OTC 1984_Passion 2_5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/3/2018 at 8:27 PM, 12 metre said:

Nice, but if I had the time and money, I would go with Passion 2, the Briand designed winner of the 1984 OTC.  To my eye the most beautiful IOR boat ever, although maybe it's just the colour a scheme I find so appealing:

 

1984 OTC_Passion 2.jpg

Sorry to say its too late. Nice article dedicated to Passion 2 - but a sad ending:

"If I'm not mistaken she went to Dublin, owned by sisk brothers, then ended up near Liverpool where she lay in a club yard, unfortunately she fell of her cradle and was so badly damaged they cut her up"

http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/One Tonner/OBri 2 Passion.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I appreciate these varied one-tons, we used to race a Beneteau One Ton out of Annapolis and required expert trimming/tacking of the running backstays and permanent backstay IOR designed boats tended to oscillate downwind requiring expertise at the helm to prevent broaching. Cruising requires more hands than today's designs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Richard2249 said:

Hi 12-metre, I agree with you about Passion 2, such an elegant looking yacht, just like her smaller sister Free Lance!  I hope it is ok if I add some of your rule analysis above to my IOR article in my blog, I am often updating articles as I find new information (or corrections) on boats or details like these.  

Sure.  If you find anything of use, feel free.

A few more observations about Jones/Davidson/Whiting:

As discussed, Jones stern designs had a high counter married to a quite flat 15% buttock line to produce a comparatively high AOCP value.  I wondered why he didn't make it really flat so AOCP intercepted near the bow (or even beyond).  It seemed to me back then that that would have blown a hole in the  Rated Length calculation and so  would have been the logical thing to try to do.

However, I do recall that measurers had some discretion in how things were measured, so perhaps no measurer would allow it - and BAPSL was later introduced to effectively establish an actual limit to how far you could push it, IDK.

With the Davidson crease, a lot of designers had inflections in the stern buttock lines to increased the slope of APSL, but he was the first to push it all the way out to the 15% buttock line.

Whitings designs, and Newspaper Taxi in particular are often viewed to have distorted lines.  But in reality, they had fewer bumps or hollows than most.  If you look at the lines drawing, the buttock lines are very fair as are all the waterlines (barring where you get up near the topsides where they are tucked in hard from station 9 to 10.

But the lines do look unusual for several reasons:

-  Aft Freeboard aft is much higher than the forward freeboard

-  BMax is located very far aft somewhere around station 7

- The forward half of the hull is extremely slab sided, both on the topsides and under the forefoot.

- Whiting drew sections the conventional way with station 0-5 on the right and 6-10 on the left.   With a conventional design having BMax around amidships, the outer lines  (Stations 5 & 6) are almost mirrors of each other.  So effectively, the right half represents the "forward sections" (for lack of a better term) while the left half represents the "aft sections"

However, as BMax was around station 7 a few of the "forward sections" are on the "aft section" side of the drawing, and the beam is actually increasing for a few stations while with a conventional design, the beam is almost always decreasing as you progress from Station 6 to 10.  The drawing would probably look a bit more normal if he put Station 0-7 on the right side and 8-10 on the left.

Lastly, an interesting link between Jones and Davidson.  in your blog about Mad Max you mention Wink Vogel bought Mad Max in the late 80's.  Prior to that, he had Dream Machine a custom Jones 44 (2 Ton).  IIRC , he intended to do AC with her, but Canada didn't put together a team that year (early 80's, can't recall the year.  Last I know she had been converted to a cruiser and was advertised for sale a few years ago somewhere in SE Asia (Malaysia?)

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially on beamy boats its not a problem to move the runners to the rail, well forward of the stern, so they can be left on through tacks. Consider boats with swept spreaders and without backstays (1D35).  Some people (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread) get cruising mains that only go up to the hounds, so it might even be possible to gybe with the runners on.

What I'm saying: many boats that are very complicated to sail can be made much simpler to sail with very minor changes to the boat rigging and your behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 12 metre said:

Sure.  If you find anything of use, feel free.

A few more observations about Jones/Davidson/Whiting:

As discussed, Jones stern designs had a high counter married to a quite flat 15% buttock line to produce a comparatively high AOCP value.  I wondered why he didn't make it really flat so AOCP intercepted near the bow (or even beyond).  It seemed to me back then that that would have blown a hole in the  Rated Length calculation and so  would have been the logical thing to try to do.

However, I do recall that measurers had some discretion in how things were measured, so perhaps no measurer would allow it - and BAPSL was later introduced to effectively establish an actual limit to how far you could push it, IDK.

With the Davidson crease, a lot of designers had inflections in the stern buttock lines to increased the slope of APSL, but he was the first to push it all the way out to the 15% buttock line.

Whitings designs, and Newspaper Taxi in particular are often viewed to have distorted lines.  But in reality, they had fewer bumps or hollows than most.  If you look at the lines drawing, the buttock lines are very fair as are all the waterlines (barring where you get up near the topsides where they are tucked in hard from station 9 to 10.

But the lines do look unusual for several reasons:

-  Aft Freeboard aft is much higher than the forward freeboard

-  BMax is located very far aft somewhere around station 7

- The forward half of the hull is extremely slab sided, both on the topsides and under the forefoot.

- Whiting drew sections the conventional way with station 0-5 on the right and 6-10 on the left.   With a conventional design having BMax around amidships, the outer lines  (Stations 5 & 6) are almost mirrors of each other.  So effectively, the right half represents the "forward sections" (for lack of a better term) while the left half represents the "aft sections"

However, as BMax was around station 7 a few of the "forward sections" are on the "aft section" side of the drawing, and the beam is actually increasing for a few stations while with a conventional design, the beam is almost always decreasing as you progress from Station 6 to 10.  The drawing would probably look a bit more normal if he put Station 0-7 on the right side and 8-10 on the left.

Lastly, an interesting link between Jones and Davidson.  in your blog about Mad Max you mention Wink Vogel bought Mad Max in the late 80's.  Prior to that, he had Dream Machine a custom Jones 44 (2 Ton).  IIRC , he intended to do AC with her, but Canada didn't put together a team that year (early 80's, can't recall the year.  Last I know she had been converted to a cruiser and was advertised for sale a few years ago somewhere in SE Asia (Malaysia?)

 

 

 

 

Thanks, interesting insights.  So if Jones did project AOCP forward that far, would that have resulted in a minimal LBG measurement?  Didn't someone try a similar length-busting trick with that winged boat Warbird, but as you say, ran foul of the measurers who were able to simply say No and fast-track a rule change when needed in extreme circumstances?

The Whiting boats did look fair in the buttock run, but then had a bit of hollow up in the topsides.  I guess better to have the distortion out of the water than in it.  

Canada opted out of the 87 AC so that must be the one you are thinking of.  Did Dream Machine have the heavy aft end distortion etc like White Rooster above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 This is fantastic!!. It is such a nice thing to see someone restoring/maintaining one of these boats, rather than spend on a new build. Funny thing, we all used to put heaps of shit on these boats, but we  still hung out for the results of certain regatta's, before the infernalnet.

 They were great! they chugged upwind sweetly, carved a big hole downwind. Lot's of rounding up when reaching. They looked the goods with those overhangs, and tumblehome on the oldies. Spinnaker poles, Martin breakers and topping lifts. Good times.

 Well done to you Sir! I'm sure your questioning the $$, but your buying fantastic memory's, and your keeping a little bit of CMAC history alive rather than letting her swing on a mooring collecting bird shit.

She looks great, be safe.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Richard2249 said:

Thanks, interesting insights.  So if Jones did project AOCP forward that far, would that have resulted in a minimal LBG measurement?  Didn't someone try a similar length-busting trick with that winged boat Warbird, but as you say, ran foul of the measurers who were able to simply say No and fast-track a rule change when needed in extreme circumstances?

The Whiting boats did look fair in the buttock run, but then had a bit of hollow up in the topsides.  I guess better to have the distortion out of the water than in it.  

Canada opted out of the 87 AC so that must be the one you are thinking of.  Did Dream Machine have the heavy aft end distortion etc like White Rooster above?

some photos from the Dream Machine ad,   Massive interior.  She had a different paint job back in the day.  Looks better now

autoimage-112111_BoatPic_Main_jpg-400-300.jpg

autoimage-112111_BoatPic_UnderwaterProfile.jpg

autoimage-112111_BoatPic_Bow.jpg

autoimage-112111_BoatPic_Interior.jpg

autoimage-112111_BoatPic_Coachroof.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/3/2018 at 7:56 PM, Diva39 said:

Damp newspapers are hard to find these days, and web newspapers are pretty boring to be spanked by. ^_^

If you really want non generic and fast Niels Jeppesen one tonner, see if you could get your hands on this one:

Okyalos_recent.jpg

She is the only one off IOR racer Niels Jeppesen ever made, and till these days one of fastest one tonners ever made.

I rember it was announced for sale in Norway in 2015 with the following text:

For Sale, lying in Norway, Volvo Penta 28 hp, 835 000 Kr [87.000 €], Weight 5400 kg, This unique sailboat is the best you can get! It was built as a one off at X-Yachts of Denmark and won the One Ton Cup 1990 in Marstrand. A nice rigtig Racing yacht, but today we sail just great summer trips with friends poured Aus Sea, the North Sea and along the Norwegian coast and enjoying life on board. The boat is only to the 26th August 2015 in Norway, so we sail the boat back to Kiel, Germany.

http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/One Tonner/X Okyalos.htm

You don't live far from Kiel, as you told - see if you can find it their, and call me if you need a "bøf". :)

There's just something about Jeppesens designs, especially the older ones. I've always had a very weak spot for the X-3/4'er tonners looks, one of my parents friend had one, and it's definitely one of my "childhood hero boats". Unfortunately he sold it in the end for a more family-oriented boat ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MikkelPetersen said:

There's just something about Jeppesens designs, especially the older ones. I've always had a very weak spot for the X-3/4'er tonners looks, one of my parents friend had one, and it's definitely one of my "childhood hero boats". Unfortunately he sold it in the end for a more family-oriented boat ;)

They are affordable even in mint condition and ready to race.

http://www.yachtworld.dk/baade/1989/X-Yachts-X-3-4-Ton-2621095/#.Wqw4spfA-SQ

And I fully agree with your description of "hero boat". These numbers speaks for it selves:

Quart Ton Cup 1981:
#1 X-102 "Soldier Blue"

Quart Ton Cup 1982:
#1 X-102 "Lille Du"

Quart Ton Cup 1985:
#1 X 3/4 Ton "Green Peace"
#2 X 3/4 Ton "Green Gimmick"
#4 X 3/4 Ton "Big Boss"
#5 X 3/4 Ton "Easy Perfection"

Quart Ton Cup 1986:
#2 X 102 "Frontrunner"

Quart Ton Cup 1987:
#1 X 3/4 Ton "Jelfi X"
#2 X 3/4 Ton "Salamande"
#3 X 3/4 Ton "Yamaha"
#4 X 3/4 Ton "Glade Vanvido"

Quart Ton Cup 1988:
#1 X 3/4 Ton "Okyalos IV"
#2 X 3/4 Ton "Latios"
#5 X 3/4 Ton "Tomahawk"

Quart Ton Cup 1989:
#1 X 3/4 "Okyalos V"

4405122_20180306045236647_3_XLARGE.jpg&w

4405122_20180306045236795_2_XLARGE.jpg&w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Diva39 said:

They are affordable even in mint condition and ready to race.

http://www.yachtworld.dk/baade/1989/X-Yachts-X-3-4-Ton-2621095/#.Wqw4spfA-SQ

And I fully agree with your description of "hero boat". These numbers speaks for it selves:

Quart Ton Cup 1981:
#1 X-102 "Soldier Blue"

Quart Ton Cup 1982:
#1 X-102 "Lille Du"

Quart Ton Cup 1985:
#1 X 3/4 Ton "Green Peace"
#2 X 3/4 Ton "Green Gimmick"
#4 X 3/4 Ton "Big Boss"
#5 X 3/4 Ton "Easy Perfection"

Quart Ton Cup 1986:
#2 X 102 "Frontrunner"

Quart Ton Cup 1987:
#1 X 3/4 Ton "Jelfi X"
#2 X 3/4 Ton "Salamande"
#3 X 3/4 Ton "Yamaha"
#4 X 3/4 Ton "Glade Vanvido"

Quart Ton Cup 1988:
#1 X 3/4 Ton "Okyalos IV"
#2 X 3/4 Ton "Latios"
#5 X 3/4 Ton "Tomahawk"

Quart Ton Cup 1989:
#1 X 3/4 "Okyalos V"

4405122_20180306045236647_3_XLARGE.jpg&w

4405122_20180306045236795_2_XLARGE.jpg&w

What a beauty - I still have a very weak spot for them.

Recently I saw one for sale, in what appeared to be good condition, for 85.000 DKR (about 14.000$ to you americans) in Holbæk, Denmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2018 at 10:49 AM, Diva39 said:

The kink on the bow sheerline was on the Judel/Jrolijk 40 (which is yours :)). You can see on your second picture:

FBEF78F2-10C3-4B24-B576-E1E3D63D3CAE.jpeg

The first i-Punkt looks completely different:

I-Punkt+85_3+RBSailing.jpg

There was no permanent watertank that time, but there was a bilge pump, which was able to pump water both into and out of the boat.

Pumping sea water into the boat is very unusual, unless you want to use it to fill a ballast tank, so that bilge pump made the jury suspecious. One of the crew members admired later that they used it to fill inflatable water canisters, to stack in the windward bunk, like this:

I-Punkt_ballast+set+up.jpg

Thats why there are no tanks in your boat, but maybe a two way bilge pump.

I probably wouldn't dare to add a bulp to that keel, unless adding major structural improvements to both keel and hull. These racers was build as light as possible, and not designed to carry more keel than absolutely necessary.

To me, it sounds like a much better idea to design two 300 L water tanks to fit along the inside of each freeboard. Something like this:

i-punkt.jpg.c5aca758dcd1abc2aec4b53767b4ded7.jpg

It has to be rated in, as well as an added bulb, if you want to race it - but you say you don't plan to. :)

What a nice thread - thank you all. 

With respect, isn’t the addition of water ballast going to cause more structural problems than extra keel weight? Haven’t most Whitbread 30s had their tanks taken out because it was causing delamination?  And they were designed and built for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Ed said:

What a nice thread - thank you all. 

With respect, isn’t the addition of water ballast going to cause more structural problems than extra keel weight? Haven’t most Whitbread 30s had their tanks taken out because it was causing delamination?  And they were designed and built for it. 

For starters, at acceptable racing angles of heel, transferable WB is more efficient than adding keel weight - even if in a bulb.  By efficient, I mean that for a defined increase in displacement, WB will generate more RM.

Secondly, while either method will increase frictional and wave drag -  if the weight is put into a bulb, there is an additional increase in form drag and possibly induced drag

Moving on to the topic of loads, this depends to a degree on whether the WB is designed to be the primary or auxiliary source of RM.  If auxiliary, some suggest the WB be no more than 25% of keel weight.  The load from WB  to the hull are pretty spread - less than roughly 0.5 psi.  So perhaps some internal stiffeners, but since baffles should be constructed, they can perform that function.  If the WB is the primary source of RM, then it may be a different issue as I haven't examined that type of arrangement.

But in the case of added keel weight, especially in the form of a bulb,  while the applied force may be of similar magnitude to a WB setup, the stress in the keel root increases substantially. This can be countered, but it requires a complete redesign of the floor structure and/or method of keel attachment.

Of course rigging loads increase as well, but this depends in general on RM and would be the same no matter which method is used  (WB or increased ballast) - provided the "target" RM is the same.

i am curious about  the stated issue of delamination.  Is it hull delam or blisters inside the tank?  If hull delam, where does the delam occur - in the area of the tanks or someplace else (i.e. bulkheads or other stiffeners)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may well have got the wrong end of the stick but I thought it was due to tanks being epoxied to the hull and the loads pulling the inner skin away from the core. A common sense interpretation would suggest that it’s easier to engineer the weight of half a dozen crew sitting outside the boat than the same weight inside it, but  I must confess to making this up as I go along! Either way I moot (UK usage) that you need to talk to a structural chap before revising the loads either way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If constructed as you describe, then I can see the potential for delam to occur.  I was assuming built in tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spica/Dauntless is still in Vancouver at Burrard Civic marina.  Sporting a Blue paint job put on with a broom on a windy day, and out of sails.  But still going.

X one ton mk1 Delidate Balance is still in town at vrc and had a beautiful multi year refit.  Looks great.

Mad Max is also in good nick and available.

My favourite was always the Briand / Beneteau 1T - not sure where Jazz ended up but those were great looking boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/03/2018 at 6:00 PM, ModernViking said:

Here is an X One-ton for sale. 
With nose-job included and all.
My god they are cheap, but I wouldn't know what to do with one.
But I do like the looks of them. 
I know, I am weird.
Sometimes

https://www.racing-yachts.com/x-one-ton-179.html#

 

Polyester from 1985 might also explain why it’s so cheap, unless it was massively overbuilt, it’s probably pretty flexible by now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mad said:

Polyester from 1985 might also explain why it’s so cheap, unless it was massively overbuilt, it’s probably pretty flexible by now.  

Is that really a thing?
The first boat I owned is from 1972, and it is still sailing around.
Never noticed anything flexible or soft about it.
The current one is from 1984, seems solid enough, but now you got me worried mad :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ModernViking said:

Is that really a thing?
The first boat I owned is from 1972, and it is still sailing around.
Never noticed anything flexible or soft about it.
The current one is from 1984, seems solid enough, but now you got me worried mad :o

Not all the time, depends on how well it was laid up, cored etc. 

But the later IOR boats were built pretty light and had a hard life at times. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is an X-1 Ton on Lake Ontario, not sure if it's a MK 1 or MK 2. 

Br

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12-3-2018 at 7:00 PM, ModernViking said:

Here is an X One-ton for sale. 
With nose-job included and all.
My god they are cheap, but I wouldn't know what to do with one.
But I do like the looks of them. 
I know, I am weird.
Sometimes

https://www.racing-yachts.com/x-one-ton-179.html#

 

I know the boat and she looks good... well kept!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12-3-2018 at 11:49 AM, Diva39 said:

The kink on the bow sheerline was on the Judel/Jrolijk 40 (which is yours :)). You can see on your second picture:

FBEF78F2-10C3-4B24-B576-E1E3D63D3CAE.jpeg

The first i-Punkt looks completely different:

I-Punkt+85_3+RBSailing.jpg

There was no permanent watertank that time, but there was a bilge pump, which was able to pump water both into and out of the boat.

Pumping sea water into the boat is very unusual, unless you want to use it to fill a ballast tank, so that bilge pump made the jury suspecious. One of the crew members admired later that they used it to fill inflatable water canisters, to stack in the windward bunk, like this:

I-Punkt_ballast+set+up.jpg

Thats why there are no tanks in your boat, but maybe a two way bilge pump.

I probably wouldn't dare to add a bulp to that keel, unless adding major structural improvements to both keel and hull. These racers was build as light as possible, and not designed to carry more keel than absolutely necessary.

To me, it sounds like a much better idea to design two 300 L water tanks to fit along the inside of each freeboard. Something like this:

i-punkt.jpg.c5aca758dcd1abc2aec4b53767b4ded7.jpg

It has to be rated in, as well as an added bulb, if you want to race it - but you say you don't plan to. :)

i sail quite a bit on a high tension 36. (sailed in the one ton cup '78) it has two big water tanks (one on each side) and a tap in between. built to open the tap just before tacking, letting the water flow to the new windward tank, close the tap and tack. we've never tried it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, daan62 said:

i sail quite a bit on a high tension 36. (sailed in the one ton cup '78) it has two big water tanks (one on each side) and a tap in between. built to open the tap just before tacking, letting the water flow to the new windward tank, close the tap and tack. we've never tried it...

I'm curious, any idea of the capacity of the tanks and pipe diameter?   I am assuming the tanks are connected by pipe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

I'm curious, any idea of the capacity of the tanks and pipe diameter?   I am assuming the tanks are connected by pipe. 

tanks are 300 liters each and the pipe is 3-4 cm (at most 5).

 

(pic was taken at the one ton revival 2017 in Breskens (NL).)

IMG-20170828-WA0013.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

I'm curious, any idea of the capacity of the tanks and pipe diameter?   I am assuming the tanks are connected by pipe. 

i'll try to remember to take some pics of the setup...

(600 liters of water capacity is a quite a lot for a 36 ft raceboat i guess (rest of the boat was/ is pretty much stripped))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, daan62 said:

i'll try to remember to take some pics of the setup...

(600 liters of water capacity is a quite a lot for a 36 ft raceboat i guess (rest of the boat was/ is pretty much stripped))

Assuming gravity feed, that is going to take a long time to transfer especially with 4 cm (1.5" pipe).  I would think such a setup would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 minutes. 

If the system uses a pump, then less time of course, not sure how much since I've only looked at gravity fed systems

I am looking at refitting my boat with two sets of gravity fed 130 litre tanks (1 fresh water, 1 raw water) and plan to use 7.6 cm (3" pipe) with remote controlled 3" gate valves.  That should yield a transfer time of 15-30 secs. 

As comparison, the fairly new water ballast J boat (J/122 or something) I believe advertises a transfer time of about 1 minute for 1,000 lb water ballast (125 gal of 470 litres) which is almost 4 x the capacity of each set of mine.  So 15 secs is probably not too unreasonable for my proposed system, but I would be content with up to 30 secs.

Pipe diameter is by far the largest factor in drain time for a gravity feed system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

Assuming gravity feed, that is going to take a long time to transfer especially with 4 cm (1.5" pipe).  I would think such a setup would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 minutes. 

If the system uses a pump, then less time of course, not sure how much since I've only looked at gravity fed systems

I am looking at refitting my boat with two sets of gravity fed 130 litre tanks (1 fresh water, 1 raw water) and plan to use 7.6 cm (3" pipe) with remote controlled 3" gate valves.  That should yield a transfer time of 15-30 secs. 

As comparison, the fairly new water ballast J boat (J/122 or something) I believe advertises a transfer time of about 1 minute for 1,000 lb water ballast (125 gal of 470 litres) which is almost 4 x the capacity of each set of mine.  So 15 secs is probably not too unreasonable for my proposed system, but I would be content with up to 30 secs.

Pipe diameter is by far the largest factor in drain time for a gravity feed system.

i'm not sure about the amount of pipes we've got... i think we might have two... (trying to visualize the bilge...)

 

i'll make some pictures of the pipe setup in the bilge next time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

Assuming gravity feed, that is going to take a long time to transfer especially with 4 cm (1.5" pipe).  I would think such a setup would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 minutes. 

If the system uses a pump, then less time of course, not sure how much since I've only looked at gravity fed systems

I am looking at refitting my boat with two sets of gravity fed 130 litre tanks (1 fresh water, 1 raw water) and plan to use 7.6 cm (3" pipe) with remote controlled 3" gate valves.  That should yield a transfer time of 15-30 secs. 

As comparison, the fairly new water ballast J boat (J/122 or something) I believe advertises a transfer time of about 1 minute for 1,000 lb water ballast (125 gal of 470 litres) which is almost 4 x the capacity of each set of mine.  So 15 secs is probably not too unreasonable for my proposed system, but I would be content with up to 30 secs.

Pipe diameter is by far the largest factor in drain time for a gravity feed system.

a pump would have been to obvious... (pretty much illegal (also in her prime time))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, daan62 said:

a pump would have been to obvious... (pretty much illegal (also in her prime time))

Back in IOR days - any form of movable ballast (other than crew) was not permitted.  So the whole system would have to be a retro fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daan62 said:

I know the boat and she looks good... well kept!

Sure looks like that too on the pictures.
With the right number of like-minded people it could be a fun project. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites